Legal Opinion
Levy v. McPhail
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided April 18, 1925No. 15865PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.
1. While the contract of an infant is declared by the code to be “void except for necessaries,” it is well settled that such a contract is not void, but voidable, at the election of the infant after arriving at full age. The exemption of the infant is a personal privilege, and his contract is subject to ratification by his retention or enjoyment, after attaining majority, of the consideration received. Civil
*785Code (1910), §§ 4233, 4234; Hood v. Duren, 33 Ga. App. 203 (125 S. E. 787 (1)). But the infant need, not wait until majority, for, whatever may be the true rule with respect to realty,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Richards v. East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Hood v. DurenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
- Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. DukesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- White v. SikesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
- Harris v. CannonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1849
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Young v. Western & Atlantic RailroadCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
- PEACHTREE NEWS COMPANY, INC. v. MacMILLAN COMPANY, INC.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- Cook v. EnglishCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1952
- Holland v. Peerless Furniture Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1939
- Strickland v. American National BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925